Increased risk of catheter‐related infection in critically ill patients given catecholamine inotropes during continuous renal replacement therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous in vitro studies have shown that catecholamine inotropes are potent stimulators of bacterial growth and biofilm formation on catheter surfaces. This study aimed to investigate the effects of administering catecholamine inotropes during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) on catheter-related infections in critically ill patients. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients requiring CRRT in an intensive care unit from 2016 to 2017, who were divided into those who received and did not receive catecholamine inotropes for ≥24 h (catecholamine and control groups, respectively). The primary endpoint was catheter-related infection, including catheter-related colonization (CRCOL) and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). FINDINGS: We included 235 patients with 297 dialysis catheters. The catecholamine group had higher proportions of cardiovascular disease (p = 0.002), shock (p < 0.001), mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001), and antibiotic use (p = 0.013). There was no significant between-group difference in the CRBSI incidence (5.742 vs. 3.143 events/1000 catheter-days; p = 0.205). However, the CRCOL incidence was significantly higher in the catecholamine group than in the control group (6.221 vs. 0.898 events/1000 catheter-days; p = 0.006). The prominent pathogenic bacteria were gram-negative bacteria. After adjusting for confounding factors in multivariate logistic models, catecholamine inotropes (OR: 3.575, 95% CI: 1.422-9.912, p = 0.008) and immunosuppression (OR: 2.980, 95% CI: 1.137-7.812, p = 0.026) were independently associated with a higher risk of catheter-related infections. DISCUSSION: We observed a similar incidence of catheter-related infection with that in other CRRT patients. Using catecholamine inotropes in those patients increased CRCOL risk, which is consistent with previous in vitro studies. Our findings suggest that catecholamine inotropes is an independent risk factor for catheter-related infections in critically ill patients undergoing CRRT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".